Weather or not? Welfare impacts of natural gas pipeline expansion in the northeastern U.S.

  • Andrew Kleit
  • Chiara Lo Prete
  • Seth Blumsack
  • Nongchao Guo
Original Paper


With the rapid development of new natural gas resources in the United States has come a number of proposals for new natural gas transmission infrastructure. We use a unique and fine-grained data set on natural gas spot pricing and gas transmission operations to model how a local pipeline expansion connecting a Marcellus Shale producing area to the main Transco pipeline system would affect flow patterns and zonal gas pricing across the Transco. Our modeling approach is based on arbitrage cost models for constrained energy networks, accounting for the effects of zonal gas transmission rates as mandated by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Application of our model to a data set of daily gas market outcomes and operating conditions on the Transco between 2012 and mid 2014 suggests that the modeled pipeline expansion would increase overall economic welfare in the spot market for Transco deliveries by $1.7 billion and have positive net social benefits of about $0.4 billion. However, more than 80% of this estimated welfare gain occurs in one season (winter 2014) featuring high gas demand due to colder weather. Thus, the spot market efficiency gains associated with pipeline projects in the Marcellus region may be limited by the frequency of extreme cold weather conditions. To examine the sensitivity of our estimates of welfare gains to different weather conditions, we calculate the expected benefits of the pipeline expansion in terms of historical temperatures from 1992 to 2011, and find that Atlantic Sunrise would have increased welfare by approximately $1.8 billion over a two and half year period, on average.


Natural gas pipelines Pipeline expansion Welfare Arbitrage cost model Total surplus 

JEL Classification

L95 P18 Q02 Q31 R40 


  1. 1.
    Bent, R., Blumsack, S., van Hentenryck, P., Borraz Sanchez, C., Backhaus, S.: Joint expansion planning for electric and gas transmission with endogenous market feedbacks. In: Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 2595-2605 (2018)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bopp, A.E., Kannan, V.R., Palocsay, S.W., Stevens, S.P.: An optimization model for planning natural gas purchases, transportation, storage and deliverability. Omega 24(5), 511–522 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Butler, J.C., Dyer, J.S.: Optimizing natural gas flows with linear programming and scenarios. Decis. Sci. 30(2), 563–580 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cameron, A.C., Trivedi, P.K.: Microeconometrics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Vany, A., Walls, W.D.: The law of one price in a network: arbitrage and price dynamics in natural gas city gate markets. J. Reg. Sci. 36(4), 555–570 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Devine, M.T., Gleeson, J.P., Kinsella, J., Ramsey, D.M.: A rolling optimisation model of the UK natural gas market. Netw. Spat. Econ. 14(2), 209–244 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Doucet, J.A., Kleit, A.N., Fikridanis, S.: Valuing electricity transmission: the case of Alberta. Energy Econ. 36, 396–404 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Egging, R., Gabriel, S.A., Holz, F., Zhuang, J.: A complementarity model for the European natural gas market. Energy Policy 36, 2385–2414 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Egging, R., Holz, F., Gabriel, S.A.: The World Gas Model—a multi-period mixed complementarity model for the global natural gas market. Energy 35, 4016–4029 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Energy Information Administration (EIA): Reduced form energy model elasticities from EIA’s regional short-term energy model (2006). Accessed 9 June 2018
  11. 11.
    Energy Information Administration (EIA): Fuel competition in power generation and elasticities of substitution (2012). Accessed 9 June 2018
  12. 12.
    Energy Information Administration (EIA): Natural gas gross withdrawals and production by U.S. State, (2017). Accessed 9 June 2018
  13. 13.
    Fletcher, D., Mackenzie, D., Villouta, E.: Modeling skewed data with many zeros: a simple approach combining ordinary and logistic regression. Environ. Ecol. Stat. 12, 45–54 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gabriel, S.A., Kiet, S., Zhuang, J.: A mixed complementarity-based equilibrium model of natural gas markets. Oper. Res. 53(5), 799–818 (2005a)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gabriel, S.A., Zhuang, J., Kiet, S.: A large-scale complementarity model of the North American natural gas market. Energy Econ. 27, 639–665 (2005b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hausman, C., Kellogg, R.: Welfare and distributional implications of shale gas, NBER Working Paper 21115 (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huntington, H.G.: Industrial natural gas consumption in the United States: an empirical model for evaluating future trends. Energy Econ. 29, 743–759 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Joutz, F., Trost, R., Shin, D., McDowell, B.: Estimating regional short-run and long-run price elasticities of residential natural gas demand in the U.S., Social Science Research Paper August 6, (2009).
  19. 19.
    Kleit, A.N.: Did open access integrate natural gas markets? An arbitrage cost approach. J. Regul. Econ. 14, 19–33 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kleit, A.N., Reitzes, J.D.: The effectiveness of FERC’s transmission policy: is transmission used efficiently and when is it scarce? J. Regul. Econ. 34(1), 1–26 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kleit, A.N., Lo Prete, C., Blumsack, S., Guo, N.: Weather or not? Welfare impacts of natural gas pipeline expansion in the Northeastern U.S. Social Science Research Paper, July 31 (2015).
  22. 22.
    Lise, W., Hobbs, B.F.: Future evolution of the liberalised European gas market: simulation results with a dynamic model. Energy 33(7), 989–1004 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moryadee, S., Gabriel, S.A., Rehulka, F.: The Influence of the Panama Canal on Global Gas Trade. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 20, 161–174 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Neumann, A., Rosellón, J., Weigt, H.: Removing cross-border capacity bottlenecks in the European natural gas market—a proposed merchant-regulatory mechanism. Netw. Spat. Econ. 15, 149–181 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    PJM Interconnection, LLC: Analysis of operational events and market impacts during the January 2014 cold weather events, May 8, 2014,
  26. 26.
    Rosendahl, K.E., Sagen, E.L.: The global natural gas market: will transport cost reductions lead to lower prices? Energy J. 30(2), 17–39 (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stefansson, G.: Analysis of groundfish survey abundance data: combining the GLM and Delta approaches. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 53, 577–588 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Welsh, A.H., Cunningham, R.B., Donnelly, C.F., Lindenmayer, D.B.: Modelling the abundance of rare species: statistical models for counts with extra zeros. Ecol. Model. 88, 297–308 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Williams, Transco 1Line Portal. Accessed 9 June 2018
  30. 30.
    Zwart, G.T.J.: European natural gas markets: resource constraints and market power. Energy J. 30, 151–165 (2009) (Special Issue: “World Natural Gas Markets and Trade: a Multi-Modeling Perspective”)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.John and Willie Leone Department of Energy and Mineral EngineeringThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations